DOI Wired RFP Episode IIIa

Filed in National by on May 22, 2009

UPDATE: I keep forgetting to link to the smoking gun. The actual half-assed RFP that has two closing dates (May 25th and May 26th), does not say what the work is that is being bid out and allows 24 hours between the bids being received and the start of vendor negotiations.

………………………………………………………………………….

The response from Gould was bullshit and he highlighted the legalese on the bottom to be sure I could never post it without running the risk of sleepless nights waiting for his lawyers to contact me. So I will not post it.

Jacobson, doing state business through his comcast account, does not have legal threats attached to his emails so here is his latest to me:

From: “Elliott Jacobson”
Date: May 21, 2009 10:29:28 PM EDT
To: “‘Jason33”
Subject: RE: RFP

Whose water are you carrying?

The man is a master of the ironic turn of phrase isn’t he?

For the record, Elliot, I read that RFP and even to my untrained eye IT REEKED of insider bullshittery. So I’m not doing this to carry water for anyone. I’m doing it because I am getting off on exposing the work of hack douchebags who write crappy RFP’s to channel tax money to their pals. Get it?

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Screw it « Down with Absolutes! | May 22, 2009
  1. anon says:

    I am getting the idea that this is not so much about consulting fees, but about creating a consultant’s report that will provide cover for cutting or restructuring enforcement to be more congenial to the insurance companies. Because after all, as Elliott points out, it’s their money.

  2. Rumor has it he lives like across the street from KWS. Does anyone know if that is true? Seems like a nice cozy relationship. Wonder if they are grilling together for the holiday this weekend?

  3. Gabriel says:

    Gould would be unable to prosecute a journalist or any other citizen for publicizing his response to an inquiry about a bid invitation to the public. From what it sounds like, it’s he who could be sued. His response is not and could not be copyrighted, so don’t let him intimidate you and infringe on your free speech rights. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d love to see his response. If he does have the unmitigated arrogance to sue you and violate your constitutional rights, DL’s insurers will pay for your defense because you acted within your official duties. Then sue his ass for frivolous litigation and abuse of process.

    We sure don’t have to ask whose water chief douchebag and mouthpiece Elliott is carrying, do we. This level of arrogance is far beyond anything we could have imagined, even knowing what we do about KWS and her three stooges without whom she’d be immediately exposed for the impostor she is.

  4. anonone says:

    Unbelievable.

    I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think those little disclaimers at the bottom of e-mails are legally or contactually binding in anyway.

    Get ’em, Jason!

  5. Gabriel says:

    When is anyone going to look into the campaign contributions KWS received from insurers via their lawyers and lobbyists, in violation of Delaware law? If you want to bring her down before she screws the people of Delaware some more because she needs to reciprocate for those contributions, that’s the way to go.

  6. arthur says:

    Uh, any email Gould sends is FOIAble…so he really has no leg to stand on.

  7. Dave M. says:

    If Gould voluntarily talks to you, there is no confidentiality imposed on you.

  8. Is it FOIAable if it’s sent from his home account? Does anyone know how emails are covered under privacy laws? I’ve always assumed that emails were fair game, but what do you do when someone puts some kind of disclaimer in the body of the text? We’re not talking about emails between co-workers, we’re talking emails between two citizens on their personal email accounts.

  9. wooohooooo Sue! I’m rich…
    errr

    I mean we need to fix the system through the courts

  10. What is confidential?

    There are no secrets being discussed. Nothing about money. Nothing that isn’t all public. I say post it, but what do I know

  11. anon says:

    There are confidentiality rules around RFPs, literally, “cone of silence” (I am not making this up). There is little the office can legally say about the RFP at this time… from their point of view, it is better to just clam up.

  12. Dave M. says:

    Reading into Elliot’s demand “Who’s water are you carrying?”:

    You obviously have information regarding this RFP that was supposed to remain profitable, er, I mean “secret” from the citizens of Delaware.

  13. anon says:

    re update….

    “and does not include the required time and location of the public bid opening.”

  14. somebody f’d with del lib and didn’t know who they were messing with

  15. anon says:

    Re Elliot’s home Comcast account:

    Elliot – if you can’t drag your ass into the office, get someone to help you set up the VPN already.

  16. cassandra_m says:

    The confidentiality rules do not apply to the person who is listed as the contact and that person is supposed to make sure that everyone interested has the same data. And that is who we have been addressing our inquiries to.

    The killer thing here is that they have yet to change this RFP — it isn’t as though something got released that shouldn’t have been, they are standing pat on this thing that has no intention of getting any value for taxpayers.

    Elliot has to be scared of something here. Why ask about carrying water if you aren’t looking for a hit from someone in particular? Why keep trying to slow roll us on legitimate questions?

  17. Gabriel says:

    Note that KWS didn’t sign the RFP. She’s smart only when her own interests are affected.

  18. RSmitty says:

    Re #6 and #7: I agree with them – from my understanding, any and all use of state email is subject to public dissemination. Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but you know who is? John Brady! Ask him about the legal standing of Gould’s response. Personally, I think he’s full of grandstanding shizzit.

    Elliot’s use of personal email to discuss state business deeply disturbs me, right along with their refusal to disclose.

  19. Mark H says:

    “Elliot’s use of personal email to discuss state business deeply disturbs me”

    And in violation of the new Social Media computing policy from DTI/GIS
    “Elliot – if you can’t drag your ass into the office, get someone to help you set up the VPN already.”

    The State uses OWA (Outlook Web Access) so he doesn’t need a VPN to access his email

  20. anon says:

    “The State uses OWA (Outlook Web Access”

    even easier

  21. arthur says:

    To add more BS to this already filled toilet. I remember getting 30-50 RFPs for projects when i was a lowly govt hack. Review them all thoroughly in 24 hours and determine who the top 5 are? hahahahahahahahahaha. KWS won. she got what she wanted and the rest of us got no lube.